Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Changes to TCP1?
I've heard this from a few people (who may have heard from the same source) that LLNS is making changes to TCP1. The rumored change is that your retirement salary will no longer be based on your highest 3 years of salary, but will instead be based on your last 3 years of salary. Has anyone else heard this and is there anything written as proof?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I heard it from someone in HR.
Does it really make a difference if it is the last 3 years or the highest 3 years. For most of us, all years will be substantially the same.
It would make a difference if you seperated, stayed out for a year and then came back and had to accept a lower salary. I know some people left LLNL for a campus job at a lower salary because they needed years of service and age. With UC it wouldn't matter as much because it is the three highest years, not the last three.
8:15
I agree with you, however I'm more concerned as to the motives in LLNS for the change. Are they probing to see how much they can change TCP1 from UCRP and still call it "Substantially Equivalent."
The last summary report on TCP1 from earlier this year had it well overfunded, and unlike UCRP in no need of additional contributions from either LLNS or employees.
TCP1 began 2009 with $1,305,923,996 in assets (fair market value estimate) compared to $882,891,334 in pension liabilities. About 47% overfunded.
So why make this change?
Well yes, it makes a difference, because it allows them to make adjustments as you get closer to retirement, lowering your pension to save them money. I'm not saying they would do that but it gives them the ability to. Most who are close to retirement would be fools to leave after putting in so many years, so basically they will have no choice but to take what they are given, which may be less than expected if this rumor is true.
LLNS are opening themselves to a lawsuit, in this case and will be in violation of the contract.
Since, they are an LLC, they can just dissolve and leave NNSA holding the bag!
That is what our smart congress people that voted to privatize did not think about!
I'm sure Lynn Soderstrom is staying up late figuring out ways how to screw each of us, personally.
crafting some scheme to take a benefit away from TCP-1 people would be a perfect way for her to get multiple screwjobs for the effort of one....
Many American corporations are currently cutting severance down to only two weeks right before they execute a big layoff. Working at some means of cutting back at your TCP1 pension benefits right before retirement would fit into the same mold. This is America, after all. We invented Bernie Madoff and big corporate crooks like AIG and Enron.
September 30, 2009 6:23 AM
The state needs help. What a great place to come get some funds to bail out the state. I say go for it.
What could make this significant is that the new job classification scheme will actually allow for salaries to be lowered: the days of pumping up your salary as a manager, then dropping back to being an individual contributor (with an inflated salary) are over. For most, though, this change isn't significant.
The other tactic that LANS here at Los Alamos has resorted to is to force (with no warning or process) engineers and scientists into absolutely crappy facility jobs. Many of these people have quit the Lab and moved-on thereby saving LANS money to direct into upper management's pockets. Brett Knapp (you guys know him) has fired or transfered over 200 people back here at Los Alamos. There has been no business reason for these transfers other than Brett exceeding his 5% PBI goal and stuffing more money in his and Mikey's pockets. Mikey also just promoted and recognized Brett for this achievement and appointed him to lead the design physics Division. Yeah appointed, no job advertisement.
Your manager: "You have two choices: retire now based on you current salary or be demoted and get a lower retirement later"
reduction in salary is coming our way it would seem.
You all didn't really believe that NNSA's "substantially equivalent" promise would be kept, did you?
Post a Comment